Lee Lee is overrated.

[Gene Green]

Whether Lee was great or not is subjective but he lost due to his own flaws and not to the weight of his opposition although he ultimately surrendered to that weight.

 

[Jamieva]

I think Jackson would have been a disaster in overall command. All of his "solo" successes came with a very small army against very inferior Union generals and all his other success as a corps commander came under Lee's supervision. Jackson would have been as bad as Hood as an Army commander - for almost exactly the same reasons. He was a bold fighter but not a logician or a coordinator.

He had a tendency to get into squabbles with his subordinates at an alarmingly high rate

You are correct about Jackson. I do not think that he gets enough credit. The South's would have been better with Stone Wall at the helm.

Jackson is underrated? Seriously?

 

[leftyhunter]

Whether Lee was great or not is subjective but he lost due to his own flaws and not to the weight of his opposition although he ultimately surrendered to that weight.

In conventional warfare being outnumbered in manpower and logistics is rather important. The general rule for an offensive army is to outnumber their opponent by at least three to one. During the battle of Antietam Lee had far less men then did McCellen. At Gettysburg almost even but the Confederate Army had very little ability to replenish ammunition. The AnV did not have a logistical support line. As I recall just a few wagons for cannon shot. Food had to be forged which is more difficult with a heavy presence of Union troops and Pennsylvania Militia.
Under such circumstances an offensive is bound to fail.
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

I agree that his team loved him, and that he was a great tactician. I am not convinced that he is a great general. Besides his men and revisionists historians loving him, what did he do that was great?

You have to considerate the quality of the opposition, could Lee have lasted four years against a first-class European power with the US' manpower numbers and war materiel making capability?

 

[Gene Green]

In conventional warfare being outnumbered in manpower and logistics is rather important. The general rule for an offensive army is to outnumber their opponent by at least three to one. During the battle of Antietam Lee had far less men then did McCellen. At Gettysburg almost even but the Confederate Army had very little ability to replenish ammunition. The AnV did not have a logistical support line. As I recall just a few wagons for cannon shot. Food had to be forged which is more difficult with a heavy presence of Union troops and Pennsylvania Militia.
Under such circumstances an offensive is bound to fail.
Leftyhunter

I agree but Lee did not wait for the weight to be definitive. He lost on a stubborn gamble. Longstreet had the right idea. Lee played it , offensive strategy offensive tactics. He should have played it offensive strategy defensive tactics.

 

[CSA Today]

I understand and respect your points. However, Washington was under manned and resourced. Despite his Army's deficiencies, we developed a strategy to win. Lee did not.

But would we have won without the French?

 

[Lost Cause]

Exactly, a gamble against the odds. Win genius, lose idiot.

What was Grant then when he lost with the odds of numbers in his favor?

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree but Lee did not wait for the weight to be definitive. He lost on a stubborn gamble. Longstreet had the right idea. Lee played it , offensive strategy offensive tactics. He should have played it offensive strategy defensive tactics.

In the thread by @scott 1967 concerning the battle of Gettysburg I and other argue that time was definitely not n Lee's favor and he had no choice but to mount an offensive not to long after the battle of Chancellorsville.
Leftyhunter

 

[Gene Green]

In the thread by @scott 1967 concerning the battle of Gettysburg I and other argue that time was definitely not n Lee's favor and he had no choice but to mount an offensive not to long after the battle of Chancellorsville.
Leftyhunter

Read longstreet's idea of how to run the offensive. He had the right idea.

 

[Gene Green]

What was Grant then when he lost with the odds of numbers in his favor?

I never said grant was great or brilliant or a genius or a god or any of the stuff said of lee but grant was the one general that Lincoln found that had the strategy and will to implement it, to beat lee. Lee did not have an answer for grant and when all other union generals retired before lee , grant would not. Grant finally brought the weight to bear.

 

[Gene Green]

I never said grant was great or brilliant or a genius or a god or any of the stuff said of lee but grant was the one general that Lincoln found that had the strategy and will to implement it, to beat lee. Lee did not have an answer for grant and when all other union generals retired before lee , grant would not. Grant finally brought the weight to bear.

Also grant understood better than most the changing nature of modern warfare and in that way was a little ahead of his time.

 

[Lost Cause]

I never said grant was great or brilliant or a genius or a god or any of the stuff said of lee but grant was the one general that Lincoln found that had the strategy and will to implement it, to beat lee. Lee did not have an answer for grant and when all other union generals retired before lee , grant would not. Grant finally brought the weight to bear.

Grant understood it would take the majority of his resources to defeat Lee. IMO, win or lose, neither were idiots.

 

[Scott1967]

Also grant understood better than most the changing nature of modern warfare and in that way was a little ahead of his time.

Cold harbour? A direct frontal assault on entrenched rifle wielding soldiers I think Grant understood modern warfare the same as Lee the only difference to all the other Union commanders was Grants one exceptional trait the determination to carry on regardless to see the job done.

In retrospect I think any other Union commander would have given up after the Wilderness campaign it was the fact Grant took a step forward not backwards that finally sealed Lee's fate.

 

[Gene Green]

This is my story and i'm Sticking to it and moving on.....
Grant was the best choice for the union and Lee was the worst choice for the confederacy.
The south started with better generalship than it finished with and the north finished with better generalship than it started with.

 

[Gene Green]

Cold harbour? A direct frontal assault on entrenched rifle wielding soldiers I think Grant understood modern warfare the same as Lee the only difference to all the other Union commanders was Grants one exceptional trait the determination to carry on regardless to see the job done.

In retrospect I think any other Union commander would have given up after the Wilderness campaign it was the fact Grant took a step forward not backwards that finally sealed Lee's fate.

No Lee didn't or he would have known he could not sustain his casualty rate. Although grant later profess regret over cold harbor he understood that he could sustain the casualties and wear lee out. I think it was right after cold harbor that he changed his strategy and forced Lee into a siege.
I agree that grant was relentless and lee did not know how to deal with him.

 

[Tailor Pete]

What is the definition of "great?" After all, since he lost and had to surrender, it seems he has quite a mountain to climb if "great" means winning the war. Can one be a "great" commander without winning one's war? We have to wrestle with that question first and define what "great" means.

He was certainly the most successful confederate army commander. Of course, he was the only confederate army commander who enjoyed any success.

He was also probably the bloodiest commander. He caused more casualties than most anyone else.

So what would he have to do to be considered "great?"

I assume by your statement, "He caused more casualties than most anyone else." That you're talking about enemy casualties? If so, one needs to look no further than the commanders of his adversaries to see the true source of these casualties.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about 'self-inflicted' casualties, then Gen. U. S. Grant has to be considered in that negatively rarified air as well.

 

[Tailor Pete]

Why do you disagree with my point? When we was the aggressor against an Unionist, he lost. Please, explain why he should be revered?

You and I may have different definitions of "revere," as I have a stronger impression of General Grant than Lee. However, let's look at the war in the east, as a whole.

Prior to Lee being placed in command, the Confederacy had a rather lack-luster leadership team. Hell, they even started to make McClelland look good!

The reason, IMHO, that Lee outlasted the commanders before him was his oftentimes brash nature and understanding of his subordinates' strengths and weaknesses. When he allowed this first attribute to override the second, war took on the impression of a **** Shoot.

Another reason he lasted in command, was simply his ability to make opposing commanders look bad. The Federal Army was rotating through commanders at an alarming rate, not necessarily because of incompetance, but because of their inability to stand the tests of public and political scrutiny.

Face it, much of Lee's success was in his ability to REMAIN in command, whereas his opponents were never given much opportunity to settle into the job before they were defeated and replaced. Had President Lincoln not tired of the military merry-go-round, Grant could have faced a similar fate after Cold Harbor! (For this reason, and a few others, I view Cold Harbor to be the true turning point in the Eastern Theater, as it gave solidity to the Federal Command Structure that they sorely needed.)

I do see Lee as a strong and inspiring commander. I also see him as, at times ruthless. I also feel he was one of the best of his era. Yet I see those very strengths in Grant as well. They were well matched as commanders, and did well with what they had. Fortunately, Grant had considerably more to work with, and the foresight to use all of it as necessary.

 

[cash]

Okay, but the OP is specifically attempting to debunk the theory of Lee's great generalship and reaffirm it's all mythology. Math most certainty does reveal he was inconsistent tactician. He did great at Chancellorsville but blew it at Gettysburg and that appears to be the pattern. Too hit & miss to be considered great, but I agree, he did enough to be considered talented.

I disagree that he "blew it" at Gettysburg. IMO his decisions at Gettysburg were all, including Pickett's Charge, reasonable decisions based on what he knew at the time.

 

[cash]

I assume by your statement, "He caused more casualties than most anyone else." That you're talking about enemy casualties? If so, one needs to look no further than the commanders of his adversaries to see the true source of these casualties.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about 'self-inflicted' casualties, then Gen. U. S. Grant has to be considered in that negatively rarified air as well.

I'm talking about enemy casualties. Lee didn't pick and choose his opponents. He went up against whatever commander the Federals sent against him. He caused heavy casualties against anyone he faced.

 

[leftyhunter]

Read longstreet's idea of how to run the offensive. He had the right idea.

Is this the same Longstreet who was beaten by Burnside at Knoxville? I seem to recall Longstreet had major issues when lead-in an independent command.
Leftyhunter